The entities holding the information here are literally police departments. The information itself is evidence, used in active criminal investigations. It's good to want things, though.

> Your data should be an extension of your home, even if it's held by another company.

Nice idea, but at least in the U.S. (with the lone exception of LE obtaining cell phone location records), courts have consistently held that if you give your data to someone else, you are no longer entitled to an expectation of privacy in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

If you want your data to be considered an extension of your home, at least for now, keep it at home.

Is there not some concept that utilizes cryptography in a way such that information about people is accessible, but if it's accessed, then the access request is added to a ledger (akin to blockchain) such that who made the access, when, and about whom becomes provably public knowledge?

We'll sooner get a law that will forbid notifying a person when such data is passed to law enforcement.

Trying to understand the position here.

This would be excluding gag orders correct?

And regular orders currently notify the service provider, but they don't necessarily notify the target, they just don't have a prohibition on the service provider notifying the target.

Finally, recordings of public areas actually aren't be impacted by warrants at all, right? But what you are saying is not just that LEA would need warrants to look at public recordings from a willingly cooperating camera owner, and that the warrants can't be gag orders (unless specified), but that the targets must be notified, even if the subject under search were someone else, the fact that I'm included in a recording would compel the LEA to notify me?

And how exactly would I be notified? Wouldn't that necessitate even more privacy invading features like facial recognition and a facial to contact information technology? Not an uncommon paradox.

Again, just want to understand the position, my position might leak as the question being leading, but I can't help it.

Alternatively, one could create serious civil damages for those capturing surveillance imagery that causes various harms including false prosecution for any data they collected, even if it was unlawfully taken or used after it was collected. ... then let the liability work out the problem by making it too risky to run non-targeted mass surveillance apparatus.

This would avoid having to define what is and isn't a mass surveillance system. Any camera recording off your property would have a legal risk for the operator-- but if you're just recording locally and only using it to discourage or solve crime you're suffering the risk would be minimal and justified.